| Subject: Meant to comment on this earlier |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/15/04 11:08pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Assumptions?" on 09/14/04 12:23am
>
>For instance, suppose we found an obelisk on a moon of
>Jupiter. Does the fact that we cannot answer those
>questions mean we should pretend it wasn't designed?
Have you noticed that all of your examples happen to be of things we know are made by man? That sets a poor tone for applying the argument to life, since we've never really seen anybody sit down and design life.
Anyway, if we found an obelisk on Jupiter the most intuitive answer would be that it was designed. As I've mentioned before in another thread, just because an answer seems intuitively right does not make it in fact "the best". The best explanation is the one that explains the obelisk and best fits the data so as to elucidate the questions Duane posed. Predictions would also factor in. Saying the obelisk was "designed" doesn't include any predictions about how or why or what you might expect if you went about the process in the same way.
The "answer" might be that obelisks on Jupiter are not designed, but are a natural consequence of volcanic activity. That is the kind of information searched for by a theory. It's observable in the future. It can be confirmed or rejected. Saying "uh, I guess someone did it." offers absolutely no intellectual meat. It doesn't make any predictions, it doesn't have any corroborating evidence besides a strong intuitive hunch.
Yes there is a designer, but none of the
>assumptions ID contains necessarily has answers to
>those questions. And that is not intrinsically
>problematic.
Unexplained data is problematic. Generally, science works towards explaining the data that isn't explained by way of more powerful theories that encompass and predict what the theory before didn't.
ID makes no attempt to explain unexplained data; it simply is content to wallow in the dark holding on to the same ideas and principles that it always has dogmatically held.
>
>No you won't. Quarks are in principle
>unobservable. (We can, of course, observe their
>effects that allow us to reasonably infer their
>existence.)
It isn't just the EFFECTS that make the difference. It's the theories that predict these things, and the complementary evidence. That helps to strengthen our "inference" by building up data that all neatly fits in like a puzzle piece.
>
>It's not silly at all. Confer my example with the
>obelisk on a moon of Jupiter. Does the fact that we
>can't answer those questions become intrinsically
>problematic? Not in the least.
Yes, they do because within that unexplained data lurks the potential to topple the entire notion.
>
>Let's see if I can find an analogy to the "who
>designed the designer" objection. Attempts to explain
>the origin of life by natural processes are invalid,
>because it fails to explain the origin of natural
>processes.
So too does it apply to a designer. Both sets of ideas are invalid by that criteria.
And if you appeal to the big bang (or
>anything else) will similarly generate the exact same
>problem with that explanation.
And again, this also rejects the idea of a designer. e.g he was always there...
>
>I'm also not comfortable with the "demonstrable
>processes" considering they don't (yet?) exist for the
>origin of life any more than “demonstrable processes”
>exist for how a computer can be made solely by natural
>(i.e. non-artificial) means.
The fundamental molecules of life have been demonstrated to occur when lightening strikes, given the conditions of primitive earth.
A computer is not composed of materials that constitute life. Earth was, and is devoted to producing living things, not non-sentient machines.
>And you have ignored the origin of matter, natural
>processes etc. Therefore origin of life is completely
>wrong, anti-scientific, religious...obviously none of
>that is true.
Either idea about the origin of life is as yet too much of a leap. However, God is not unlike the ether in terms of complicating tasks that seem to go on without the need for assuming he was somehow behind it.
The fact (if it so) that we can't
>identify the designer is not intrinsically problematic
>(again, consider the obelisk scenario).
Oh yes, it's a problem, because if the "designer" is a natural process, then your entire idea goes to shit.
>
>
>And I don't think they will ever succeed in showing
>any possible means for organic evolution.
With the Miller experiments I mentioned before, they are well on their way. (in fact, progress has been made far beyond what Miller showed)
>
>The explanatory filter allows us to reasonably infer
>design even when we don't know who the designer is.
>If you have a similar procedure for identifying the
>designer, submit it to the ID scientists. If not,
>please recognize the limitations of science.
If by "design" you mean that it appears to have been made by a who or what, that's one thing. If by design you mean only by something alive that purposefully made it, then you've limited yourself to a specific assumption that isn't truly reflective of the possible answers to the situation.
>
>What assumption? That such a designer exists? Of
>course they are. But, as I have said before, that is
>independent of determining the identity of the
>designer.
Perhaps they shouldn't be looking for a who.
>Asked and answered (for the first ones). We can
>rationally infer design even if we don't know exactly
>how it was done (e.g. the pyramids).
No, we can't. We SEE design, and then we can attempt to figure out who or what made it. Design in and of itself is a subjective opinion depending on who you ask.
>
>All these "rational" people are paranoid (or at least
>irrational, seriously confused etc.) if they think
>it's being motivated solely by political/religious
>matters, especially given the lack of evidence to
>support that assertion (confer my examples) etc.
Because ID is an age old knee jerk reaction to Darwin, one can safely bet that the roots are largely political and religious. People cannot seem to come to grips with the fact that they are nothing special in the universe, but only here in America does it seem to be a big issue.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 